This is the mail archive of the email@example.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Brendan Simon wrote: > > I wish to cross compile gcc to m68k and ppc embbedded systems. I wish > to be able to cross compile on Linux and Win32 platforms and generate > exactly the same output files. ie. I prefer to use Linux while other > coworkers prefer to use Win95. To use the cross-compiler I need (not > needed but prefer to have) a standard C and C++ library. > > Do newlib and glibc do the same/similar thing ? > >From my understanding they are both standard C libraries. > If they are interchangeable then I would think that glibc would be > better as it is used in naitive GCC ports to OSs such as Linux and > Win95. This would make simulating things more consistant as the same C > libraries would be used on the hosts and the embedded systems. Ignoring all technical issues whatsoever, the biggest issue is licensing. glibc is covered by the LGPL (which is the GNU library general public license), which includes sections like: ----- "You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things: a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.) b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution. c) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place. d) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy. For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it." ----- I believe most embedded software producers dislike these restrictions. For linux systems (for example), it doesn't matter because you don't distribute glibc with your code - most new linux systems have glibc installed. Hence the existence of newlib, which was put together primarily for licence-free use in embedded systems so that they did not have odd requirements made of their end-product. Frankly it isn't as "good" as glibc, as it doesn't have the same degree of volunteer effort put into it, but it has everything you would want for a standard C library. For example, to correct you, it is newlib that is used in cygwin32 for the ports of gcc to win95. Hope this helps, Jonathan L. -- Cygnus Solutions, 35 Cambridge Place, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 728762 "It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless||Home e-mail: jifl @ one has plenty of work to do" - Jerome K. Jerome || jifvik.demon.co.uk Help fight spam! http://spam.abuse.net/ These opinions are all my own fault